Environment, tourism, and Mount Apo (2nd part) T

he decision to re-open all the trails of Mount Apo to the public by the Protected Area Management Board of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources was said done because of the requests made by the local government units.

This is in assumption that the local governments are preparing for the influx of tourists who will spend their vacation at the designated camp sites in Mt. Apo throughout the summer break.

Such move was met by criticisms, and expression of disappointment, especially from environmentalist groups and mountaineers who advocate for environmental protection. Now they are calling to the public, especially those who wish to experience Mount Apo to refrain in entering its domain, simply because of the fact that it had experienced a massive forest/grass fire that affected about 111 hectares.

The fire was a result of an apparent neglect by one of the mountaineers who left a fire in their camp before leaving and the circumstances were induced also by the extreme heat brought by El Niño phenomenon that time. So, this makes the opening of the trails very premature to say the least, since it should take many years to rehabilitate the burned areas of Mount Apo.

Now, calling for the public not to visit Mount Apo, perhaps in the next five to 10 years, is one thing, But the most interesting part is, can there be any legal remedies those concerned parties can utilize in order to prevent its actual opening by April 25, as reports stated? There can be - through the Writ of Kalikasan. In 2010, the Supreme Court of the Philippines added the writ under the Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases as a Special Civil Action. The writ is a remedy for individuals or groups who are affected by the acts (or omissions) made by government or nongovernment entity that will also have an effect on the environment that may “damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.”

The writ, however, can be filed before the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals and it has no docketing fee. Based on the provisions of the writ, the petitioners can ask the court to issue a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (Tepo), which is very crucial in order to temporarily halt the ongoing activities that may damage further the environment.

The provision also stated that from Tepo, the petitioners may also ask the court for the issuance of the Environment Protection Order (Epo) which may mean that activities may be indefinitely be halted or moderated within the area where the petition was asked to be protected.

And since I am not yet a full-fledged lawyer, it would be better if these things are consulted from those who already passed the bar and handled environment-related cases. The thing here is, unlike before that the public is almost helpless to act on certain environmental issues, we now have legal remedies to counter activities that we believe destructive to nature.

As to the case of Mt. Apo, there might be a good case of winning a TEPO especially that the degree of damage incurred by its area was massive and it is still sensitive to any tourist activities.

And here comes the challenge, we are basically running out of time, considering that filing legal cases in the country is like a lifetime commitment due to its slow phase. But beyond all these obstacles, who are willing to take the chances of filing Writ of Kalikasan to protect Mt. Apo and let it heal until it is fully recovered?

(nefluczon@gmail.com)